If you have ever played or watched team sports, you may be familiar with the idea that “if the team doesn’t win, nobody wins.” Teams win or lose as a group, even though players contribute as individuals to the team’s goals. 

The same dynamic applies in the workplace—individuals contribute, but the team succeeds or fails together. To support team success, managers must be able to distinguish between “wants” and “needs,” especially since team members may not always see the difference from their perspective. 

Lab Management Certificate

The Lab Management certificate is more than training—it’s a professional advantage.

Gain critical skills and IACET-approved CEUs that make a measurable difference.

For example, many organizations have contributors who are skilled and valuable because of their proficiency with computer hardware and software. This person reads tech articles like other people follow box scores on the sports page. When new computers come out, you can expect to see a request for the latest and greatest in your inbox. When you ask about the adequacy of their present setup, nothing is wrong with it. Work is getting done on time, and the unit’s capacity is more than sufficient. It’s just not the newest available. In a world without resource constraints, being able to upgrade hardware “just because” would be “nice to have,” placing it in the category of a “want.” In other words, it is not mission-critical.

In contrast, imagine your lab is expanding its environmental testing capabilities to comply with updated EPA regulations. A new method for detecting trace levels of PFAS in drinking water now requires instrumentation with much higher sensitivity than your current equipment provides. Without the upgrade, your lab cannot deliver compliant results, and you risk losing contracts. This isn’t optional—it’s a “need.”

In operational terms, “needs” are directly related to your goals and mission—without them, achieving those goals becomes very difficult, if not impossible.. “Wants” are collateral outcomes that do not directly support goal achievement. When presented with staff requests that require the commitment of organizational resources, evaluate the request using the following questions and examples:

• What is being requested? Do the resources already exist in the organization? If so, is there sufficient capacity to meet this need without additional expenditure? 
• Why is the resource needed? Is the resource directly or indirectly supporting the organization’s goals and mission? How critical is the resource? Would it be “nice to have,” or is it “mission critical?”
• Where is the source or location of the desired resource? Is it foreign or domestic? Are there alternative resources? Could the resources be produced in-house at a lower cost?
• When is the resource needed? How tight is the projected timeline? How critical is the timing for bringing the resource online? Could the purchasing timeline be managed to achieve a more favorable cost position?
• Who will be using the resource? Will the resource be used by one person or multiple staff members?

These questions don’t just help eliminate unnecessary requests; they also provide a clear rationale for approving resources essential to fulfilling the organization’s mission.

Further, not all “wants” should be immediately rejected. Some “wants” may indirectly support organizational goals. For example, providing ergonomic furniture for desks and chairs can reduce fatigue and improve focus and productivity. Additionally, people may feel better physically when working under time pressure. These improvements can lead to noticeable gains in performance, morale, and overall team efficiency.

Now comes the more nuanced part of leadership—communicating with care when a request must be denied. If a team member views something as a “need” that you’ve assessed as a “want,” it’s important to walk through the reasoning with them. Approach the conversation with transparency and respect, reinforcing that the decision is grounded in the lab’s priorities and resource constraints—not a reflection of the individual or their contributions. Start with the specifics of the request. Give a summary of the above review questions to the extent that they would be helpful. Explain the rationale of the decision criteria, i.e., does the request support the mission? Distinguish between “wants” and “needs” and relate them to funding constraints. Inform your team member that if their “want” directly supports the mission and goal achievement, it stands a better chance of being approved. 

Another challenging aspect to consider is that lab managers often face multiple legitimate needs. A short framework for triage could help.

When faced with multiple legitimate needs, consider the following criteria:

Regulatory impact: Does this purchase ensure compliance or reduce legal risk?

Operational disruption: Will failure to approve the request halt or delay core lab work?

Stakeholder visibility: Is the need tied to client deliverables or high-profile projects?

Cross-functional benefit: Does this support more than one team or initiative?

Cost vs. impact: Will the investment provide a measurable return (e.g., saved hours, reduced errors)?

The above guidance provides a good starting point to review staff requests. Using a standardized, strategic framework will provide you with the means to review requests with your direct reports, allowing them to be revised and resubmitted as needed. Just as important, this framework provides the necessary documentation when responding to upper management’s requests for information or justification for a request. 

By aligning the request with your organization’s goals, mission, and strategy, you’ve built the strongest possible case for approval. You've also created a clear, well-documented rationale that addresses the concerns of all relevant stakeholders. That’s not just good management—it’s strategic leadership.